Case 8001205/2024 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001205/2024 (V)5 Held on November 2024 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr R Bialonski v National Oilwell Varco UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8001205/2024
- Decision date
- 11 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001205/2024 (V)5 Held on November 2024 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr R Bialonski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's ET1 raised unfair constructive dismissal. At the case management hearing on 5 November 2024, he applied to amend the claim to add perceived race discrimination, saying that he had been treated as an outsider and excluded from decision-making, holiday requests, and grievance and appeal processes. The respondent opposed the amendment, relying on Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore and arguing that it would add a new out-of-time claim and increase complexity and expense.
Employment Judge Hendry refused the amendment on 8 November 2024. The tribunal held that the claimant's case did not amount to discrimination by perception within the meaning discussed in Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey, because being an 'outsider' is not a protected characteristic. The judge also considered that, even if the application were treated as an attempt to plead direct race discrimination, the underlying facts were already known when proceedings were raised and there was no good reason why a race discrimination claim had not been included from the outset.
Applying the Selkent approach and balancing the injustice and hardship of allowing or refusing the amendment, the tribunal accepted that a new race discrimination claim would add complexity and cost for the respondent. It concluded that it would not be appropriate to allow a new race discrimination claim out of time and refused the application. No monetary remedy was awarded because the amendment was refused and the merits of any discrimination claim were not determined.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Application to amend the ET1 to add a perceived race discrimination claim was refused. The tribunal did not determine the merits of any race discrimination allegations. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Jesuthasan
- Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.